Presidential Debate Between Harris and Trump Continues Dramatic Election Year
The 90-minute debate in Philadelphia, P.A. covered a wide variety of issues, as well as several controversies.
The second presidential debate of the 2024 election season marked another dramatic moment in one of the most contentious elections in American history.
Since President Joe Biden dropped out of the race on July 21, the public has anticipated the debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump.
The Sept. 10 debate marked the first time both candidates have physically met each other, beginning with a handshake instigated by Harris, which was the first handshake in a debate in eight years. The debate covered a variety of issues, ranging from the economy and abortion to immigration and the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.
Compared to the first debate between Biden and Trump, the former president fared worse as he toted conspiracy theories, leaned into traps set up by Harris and had an overall negative perspective on America’s future — often mentioning the prospects of World War III on the horizon.
Harris had faults in the debate — including question dodging and some incorrect facts, such as exaggerating the unemployment under Trump as comparable to the Great Depression — but came out the most successful candidate to debate Trump, compared to the debates involving Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Biden earlier this year.
As the New York Times described, “Laying out bait that Donald Trump eagerly snatched, the vice president owned much of the night, keeping him on the back foot and avoiding sustained attention on her own vulnerabilities.”
Even the recent endorser of the former president, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., admitted that “Vice President Harris clearly won the debate in terms of her delivery, her polish, her organization and her preparation.”
While there was criticism from Trump’s base around the unfairness of live fact-checking in the debate by ABC moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis, it should be noted that the majority of Harris’ false claims didn’t have a comparable level of absurdity as Trump’s.
Some moments from the debate have gained popularity on social media — from Trump talking about the head of the Taliban named Abdul, whose real name is Hibatullah Akhundzada, to lines like, “I have concepts of a plan” and “transgender operations on illegal aliens in prison.”
The most striking claim of the night made by former President Trump was in regards to a right-wing conspiracy involving Haitian migrants in Springfield, O.H. Trump explained that “In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”
NPR reported, “The claim, which local police say is baseless, first circulated among far-right activists, local Republicans and neo-Nazis before being picked up by congressional leaders, vice presidential candidate JD Vance and others. A well-known advocate for the Haitian community says she received a wave of racist harassment after Vance shared the theory on social media.”
Although Trump’s claims appear ridiculous, it should be noted that sharing these claims can have substantial, potentially dangerous, effects on citizens and immigrants.
“You just can’t believe it’s even possible that you would say to 57 million people, ‘they’re eating cats in Springfield, Ohio’…it’s just so strange and bizarre,” said Professor Melissa Gaeke, director of the Center for Civic Engagement and Leadership and senior professional lecturer of political science at Marist College, who was surprised at Trump’s statements.
When asked about Harris’ performance, Gaeke noted, “There was a lot of concern that she didn’t speak specifically enough on [certain] issues, she handled Trump well and didn’t appear defensive…she kept her composure and didn’t seem bothered by him.”
In contrast, Gaeke saw Trump’s performance as extremely poor. “[The debate] exposed Trump in a very plain, clear way who he is and the manner in which he thinks,” she said. “His inability to engage in a natural process of a debate — it wasn’t a debate, he was just spewing his ‘facts.’ He is not capable of engaging in a dialogue, let alone a debate.”
Even with her assessment of the debaters’ performances, Gaeke is still unsure if the debate will have a resounding effect on the opinions of undecided voters, “I do think the debate for a lot of people was just interesting, but for a good number of people, I don’t think it swayed them either way,” she said.
Student reactions were lukewarm, emphasizing the lack of sway that the debate had on their opinions. “[It] didn’t really do anything to separate each candidate, both of them had things they need to work on,” said Rigby Gee ‘27.
“Trump didn’t seem nearly as knowledgeable as he should’ve been for a good amount of questions,” Gee continued. This lack of knowledge was reflected in Trump’s misquoting, misrepresenting or lying when he was faced with questions he may not have fully developed answers to.
Opinions about Harris weren’t entirely favorable either, with Gee saying that “Kamala was very theatrical, focusing more on making faces instead of answering the questions well.”
Meghan Culligan ‘27 said it felt “like satire and wasn’t as serious or productive as I wish it had been.”
“Every part of the debate now is done for clicks, or views, or to go viral on social media because that’s where our attention is,” said Carter McDavitt ‘26.
This QR code provides a link to the Marist Votes linktree, for voting registration, absentee ballots and the ability to check your registration. QR code provided by MaristVotes2024
An anonymous junior took it a step further, saying that “bringing up ‘possibilities’ like World War III is extremely dangerous and inappropriate for someone with that level of influence to be flaunting. There was also blatant lying and unsupported ‘facts’… I did have a preferred candidate, and I did feel that one side did address questions in a more factual way.”
A New York Times article conceded that some politically neutral Americans left the debate unconvinced that there was a clear candidate to support. Costly programs on both sides, along with unclear positions on immigration and foreign policy, were cited as alienative, making it difficult to strongly support either side.
Gee echoed this sentiment: “If anything, they need another debate.”
While Harris has proposed another debate with Trump, saying “I believe we owe it to the voters to have another debate because this election and what is at stake could not be more important,” the former president has declined. On Truth Social, Trump posted, “In the World of Boxing or UFC, when a Fighter gets beaten or knocked out, they get up and scream, ‘I DEMAND A REMATCH, I DEMAND A REMATCH!’ Well, it’s no different with a Debate. She was beaten badly last night. Every Poll has us WINNING.”
The next debate scheduled for this election season is the Vice Presidential debate between J.D. Vance and Tim Walz in New York City on Oct 1. Time will tell if either debate will have a profound effect on the election in November.